Rus Airlines disputes preliminary findings, but GSGA takes firm line (1,100 words)

Published: 9/10/2001

The preliminary report of the investigation into the crash, on 14th July, of a Rus Airlines' Il-76 at Chakalovsky military air base in the Moscow region, has been used by Alexander Neradko, Head of the GSGA and Deputy Transport Minister, as an opportunity to warn the industry that the scant regard taken by certain sections of the industry for the regulations relating to loading and certification will not be tolerated by the Ministry of Transport. Speaking to air transport executives on 3rd September, Neradko citied the Rus Air crash as b illustrative of the industry's problems and promised severe punishment to those in the industry that sought to flout the law and, in particular, those operating the Il-76; specifically those Il-76s coming from military service into civilian operation. The investigation team identified overloading as the primary reasons for the Rus Air crash, despite earlier denials by the airline that this was the case. The conclusion was reached as a result of data from the aircraft flight recorders suggesting that, while the engines and other systems were operating normally in the early stages of the flight, the aircraft had gained only 40 metres in altitude in the first three minutes, in marked contrast to the 500 metres that would normally have been expected with an appropriate payload. Although the engines were operating correctly, the enquiry recorded that there was extensive falsification of the aircraft's logs, including two of the aircraft's D-30 engines and that of the auxiliary power unit. In the case of the auxiliary power unit, documentation suggested an overhaul just three years ago when, in reality, it had been ten years previously. Commenting on the performance of the flight crew, the investigation team said that the crew failed to follow instructions given by the pilot, including the retraction of the landing gear, although this was attributed in part to intercom noise drowning the pilot's voice. The aircraft was also said to have had a stabiliser trim that indicated overloading, particularly when combined with instructions by the pilot recorded on the cockpit voice recorder calling for “step by step positioning of flaps”: consistent with overloading and contrary to the approved operation of the Il-76. The enquiry also judged the level of training of the crew by the airline to be low and that, while performing the pre-flight checks, the crew demonstrated both “violations and overconfidence”. Particularly cited were calculations by the crew and ground staff, relating to the loading of freight and fuel, where the enquiry found miscalculations that effectively rendered the aircraft overweight by between 4-6.7 tonnes. Rus Airlines has stated that it does not accept the findings of the investigations. Evgeny Rybyakov, spokesman for the airline, continues to uphold the company's earlier assertions that the aircraft was not overloaded. He has, however, conceded that the Il-76TD was at maximum take-off weight, with 40 tonnes of freight and a take-off weight of 190 tonnes. Rybyakov said that the investigation team had simply chosen the easiest explanation, rather than the correct one, adding that the company has nothing to gain from overloading, given the impact of the practice on the aircraft's fuel consumption. of an aircraft. This point seems to have been given little credence by the investigators, given the widespread practice of overloading Il-76s that is driven by the additional revenues to be gained, regardless of the impact on fuel economy. And, according to Genrikh Novozhilov, Ilyushin's General Designer, with normal loading, the aircraft would have cleared the trees that caused the crash, even with its undercarriage down. Rus Airlines did at least acknowledge and partially accept the investigation's conclusions on the flight crew. Rybyakov commented that the company had trusted the aircraft's commander, Vyacheslav Boiko, as an experienced Il-76 pilot, but accepted the inexperience of his co-pilot, whose primary experience had largely been with the significantly smaller L-410 turboprop. Rybyakov reiterated the airline's view that the reason for the aircraft crashing lay in the close proximity of the trees to the runway - just 100 metres - rather than the failure to gain altitude, as a result of overloading. Rybyakov claimed that the trees were not revealed to the crew during the pre-flight briefing process, or on the maps of the area. He considers that these factors, combined with heavy fog that morning, caused the crash. Rybakov disputes the claims by the GSGA that overloading causing a slow climb rate that, together with the late retraction of the landing gear, caused the aircraft's left wing to collide with the 30m trees. Despite Rus's protestations, the investigation has very clearly put the blame for the crash on the airline and its licence, suspended soon after the crash, remains that way. Rus's fleet is therefore grounded, with its 400 employees on unpaid leave, losing the company is losing $100,000 a day, with total losses now standing at $3m. Rus is therefore seeking to contest the suspension of the licence and has applied to the Moscow Arbitrage Court for both the restoration of its licence by the Ministry of Transport and the payment of $3m for its losses, as a result of its suspension. Whether it will be successful in this respect is another matter, given the GSGA's determination to be seen to be bringing to heel the industry's wayward elements. Rus has been the subject of a number of investigations by the GSGA over the issue of using “questionable” engines in the past and has been forced to withdraw a reported five D-30KPs and three TA-6s, after the discovery that aircraft operated by the airline had engines long removed from service and illegally restored. It has also been found to have bought aircraft from a batch of 20 ex-Ukrainian Air Force Il-76MDs acquired by a company called Truvor through an intermediary, with the aircraft then being overhauled under forged documentation. For the GSGA, the incident, along with others, will lead to new regulations being introduced. According to Neradko, these will be aimed at reducing the opportunity for operators and others to forge log books by giving manufacturers the sole right to issue them. They will also include a comprehensive audit of the logbooks of the civil Il-76s currently in service and compel those operators caught overloading aircraft to overhaul completely the Il-76s in question. It also looks as though that the GSGA will tighten up on the lax regimes of military bases servicing civil aircraft, in an effort to avoid some of the practices that contributed to the Chakalovsky accident.

Article ID: 2746